Legal luminary Tsatsu Tsikata has vehemently condemned the disenfranchisement of over 17,000 voters in the Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe, and Lolobi (SALL) areas during Ghana’s 2020 parliamentary elections, describing it as a grave threat to the nation’s democratic order. Speaking on PM Express on Joy News, Mr. Tsikata warned that this unprecedented episode exposes dangerous gaps in the country’s constitutional practice and risks eroding the state's legitimacy, blurring the line between lawful governance and lawlessness.

The SALL communities faced this exclusion after the Electoral Commission ruled that there was no designated constituency for them following the creation of the Oti Region, despite their inclusion in the Hohoe municipality. This meant that while residents participated in the presidential vote, they were denied parliamentary representation for four years, leaving the Hohoe seat occupied by John Peter Amewu uncontested by them. Mr. Tsikata, who served as counsel for petitioners challenging the Hohoe election results, insisted that this exclusion was not only unfair but demands immediate redress, emphasizing that SALL residents are “owed reparation.”

Mr. Tsikata stressed the significant material impact of this disenfranchisement. He argued that if SALL had a representative in parliament, that individual would have had access to the Common Fund, which could have been used for development projects in the area. “During those four years, they had no representation,” he stated, asserting that “whatever the state can do to ensure that what they were not able to access in that period should be accorded to them. I think that’s fair.” This insistence on compensation or reparation highlights the tangible losses incurred by the communities due to their lack of representation.

Beyond the developmental deficits, Tsikata views the SALL situation as a profound constitutional threat. He reiterated his belief that “what happened in respect of SALL is not only unprecedented, but it is a danger to the Republic,” cautioning that repeated instances where “pockets of the country find that they are somehow just excluded” could lead to a dangerous build-up of experience with wider, destabilizing consequences for the nation. This systematic exclusion, he argues, undermines the very foundation of democratic governance.

Drawing on legal philosophy, Mr. Tsikata invoked an analogy from his law professor, H.L.A. Hart, to underscore the critical stakes. He explained that one must distinguish a legal system from a “gang of robbers,” emphasizing that a true legal system is “understood by the whole society, as you know, working for the benefit of the society as a whole.” He warned against the deceptive nature of mere pronouncements about the rule of law and equality before the law, stating that if these are “just pronouncements,” then even a “gang of robbers” could constitute itself into a semblance of order. For Tsikata, the rule of law must be tangible and demonstrably work for all citizens, not remain abstract rhetoric.

In light of these concerns, Mr. Tsikata placed a crucial responsibility on the judiciary and legal practitioners. He urged them to “eagerly ensure that that differentiation is clear in the minds of the population, that we are there to administer justice.” He called for this to be the “clear testimony on the part of judges,” acknowledging that some recent experiences do not fully suggest this ideal. Nevertheless, he expressed hope that a greater commitment to justice and the rule of law could be encouraged, transforming these concepts from mere phrases into actionable principles for the benefit of the entire society.